Effect of <!DOCTYPE html> on rendering

**gulliver** · Oct 15, 2011 14:22

I've been using a <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> to trigger standards mode.

Will a switch to <!DOCTYPE html> cause problems?

**felgall** · Oct 15, 2011 15:15

It shouldn't do - they are both versions of the strict Doctype and so both should put the CSS and JavaScript code into standards mode.

**gulliver** · Oct 16, 2011 01:00

Originally Posted by felgall

It shouldn't do - they are both versions of the strict Doctype and so both should put the CSS and JavaScript code into standards mode.

Good-o. That's what I'd hoped - but hadn't been able to confirm by what I'd read so far.

**deathshadow60** · Oct 16, 2011 03:15

If you look here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ms535242(VS.85).aspx

there's a chart halfway down that shows that IE will go into standards mode on a unrecognized doctype even without the URL. That's why the HTML 5 lip-service doctype actually works. It's actually invalid, but that's why it does what it does...

Beware though that Netscape 6 will be in quirks mode with the 5 doctype -- not that anyone in their right mind is still using that.

Though my question would be, why do you want the steaming pile of manure that is 5 in the first place? -- but that's me.

**xhtmlcoder** · Oct 16, 2011 03:50

Off Topic:

Why? Because Fred automatically makes all your code the most semantic in the world without even doing anything and super-dooper and other stuff and gets you loads of fans and amazing SEO results and works 100% perfectly in all browsers ever made and those that haven't. Or that's what the fan-boys would make you believe. ;-)

**gulliver** · Oct 16, 2011 05:30

Originally Posted by deathshadow60

If you look here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/ms535242(VS.85).aspx

there's a chart halfway down that shows that IE will go into standards mode on a unrecognized doctype even without the URL. That's why the HTML 5 lip-service doctype actually works. It's actually invalid, but that's why it does what it does...

Beware though that Netscape 6 will be in quirks mode with the 5 doctype -- not that anyone in their right mind is still using that.

Though my question would be, why do you want the steaming pile of manure that is 5 in the first place? -- but that's me.

Thanks. And for 'why?'... insn't that the way to go?

**Stevie D** · Oct 16, 2011 05:58

Originally Posted by gulliver

Thanks. And for 'why?'... insn't that the way to go?

People said that about XHTML2. People said that about Betamax. New doesn't always equal better.

At the moment, there's precious little reason to even think about using HTML5. Inline form validation for non-critical forms is one of the very few advantages it offers for the time being. A short and easy-to-remember doctype is the other

But the fact that some mainstream browsers don't natively support HTML5 features means that using them now is either (a) doomed to failure, as some people won't be able to use your site, or (b) extra effort, putting workarounds in place to make sure they can. Neither of which seem like good strategies.

What HTML5 doesn't offer is any kind of rigid enforcement of what a lot of people here would consider 'good practice'. That doesn't mean that you can't do the right thing, it just means that you don't have to. It introduces a lot of new elements that don't seem to be particularly necessary, and leaves in others that it should have taken out.

But this isn't the place for a detailed discussion of HTML5, there's plenty of that already going on.

User Tag List

Thread: Effect of <!DOCTYPE html> on rendering

Thread Tools

Display

Effect of <!DOCTYPE html> on rendering

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions